Vermont Senate keeps primary election in late August

Lawmakers reject move to change date to first Tuesday of the month

Apr. 10, 2013

Written by

Free Press Staff

MONTPELIER — The Vermont Senate rejected a proposal Wednesday to move the state’s primary election from late August to early August.

Senators voted 29-0 to amend the election bill and remove the parts that would have moved the primary to the first Tuesday in August and moved candidate filing deadlines to May.

Secretary of State Jim Condos wasn’t there for the vote and said he was given no heads-up that the Senate planned to reject his request to move the primary. “I’m extremely disappointed,” he said afterward. He said he would make his case to House members for the earlier primary.

Condos wanted the primary moved to avoid running into problems with federal authorities over meeting deadlines for mailing general election ballots overseas. He said the Justice Department is forcing other states to move their primaries.

For the past two elections, Vermont has held the primary in late August (the fourth Tuesday), after lawmakers switched it from mid-September to allow for more time to get general election ballots out to overseas voters. Even with the earlier date, recounts in close races still made it difficult for the state to meet federal deadlines for general election ballots, he said.

Senate Government Operations Committee Chairwoman Jeanette White, D-Windham, voted to keep the late-August primary in place Wednesday even though her committee wrote the bill with the early August primary date in it. “I don’t think we got enough justification” for moving the primary, she said.

Asked why she bothered to put the earlier date in the bill, she said, “We were asked to do it for the Secretary of State’s Office.”

Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell, D-Windsor, said the Senate essentially decided Condos has enough time to get ballots out if his staff works overtime. “If you balance this — overtime versus trying to move the entire process up, we feel it’d be more onerous on voters and those running for office,” Campbell said.